February 10, 2013

This Just In...

WASHINGTON — If President Obama
tuned in to the past week’s bracing debate on Capitol Hill about
terrorism, executive power, secrecy and due process, he might have
recognized the arguments his critics were making: He once made some of
them himself.

Four years into his tenure, the onetime critic of President George W. Bush
finds himself cast as a present-day Mr. Bush, justifying the muscular
application of force in the defense of the nation while detractors
complain that he has sacrificed the country’s core values in the name of
security.

No kidding. If Glenn Greenwald survives the aneurysm this story induces I expect he will have a colorful response. In the meantime, his column from January 18 2011 remains a classic:

Aside from the repressiveness of the policies themselves, there are
three highly significant and enduring harms from Obama’s behavior. First,
it creates the impression that Republicans were right all along in the
Bush-era War on Terror debates and Democratic critics were wrong. The
same theme is constantly sounded by conservatives who point out Obama’s
continuation of these policies: that he criticized those policies as a
candidate out of ignorance and partisan advantage, but once he became
President, he realized they were right as a result of accessing the
relevant classified information and needing to keep the country safe
from the Terrorist threat. Goldsmith, for instance, claimed Obama
changed his mind about these matters “after absorbing the classified
intelligence and considering the various options.” GOP Sen. Susan
Collins told the NYT‘s Baker that Obama “is finding that many
of those policies were better-thought-out than they realized.” Cheney
boasted that Obama “obviously has been through the fires of becoming
President and having to make decisions and live with the consequences.”

There is that.

There is interesting but incomplete nuance at the Times:

The dissonance is due in part to the fact that Mr. Obama ran in 2008
against Mr. Bush’s first-term policies but, after winning, inherited Mr.
Bush’s second-term policies.

By the time Mr. Bush left office, he had shaved off some of the more
controversial edges of his counterterrorism program, both because of
pressure from Congress and the courts and because he wanted to leave
behind policies that would endure. He had closed the secret C.I.A.
prisons, obtained Congressional approval for warrantless surveillance
and military commissions, and worked to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

So while Mr. Obama banned harsh interrogation techniques, he preserved
much of what he inherited, with some additional safeguards; expanded Mr.
Bush’s drone campaign; and kept on veterans of the antiterrorism wars
like Mr. Brennan. Some efforts at change were thwarted, like his vow to
close the Guantánamo prison and to try Sept. 11 plotters in civilian
court.

The enhanced interrogation program was scaled back but not banned under Bush.

Goldsmith, is an idiot, as Thiessen pointed out, when we went after Zawahiri in Bajaur, and missed in 2005, there was no end of caterwaling, it may have been the source of 'air raiding villages' likewise when we took out Abu Hamza al Rabia, there was no congratulations, nabbing KSM early foreclosed
the most extreme attacks, Setmarian, Michael Moore's twin, was the next successful operator, and he was nabbed after London,
Zarquawi was the next one down, and ultimately the Amman hotel attack allowed
McChrystal to track him down.

that narrative is hard to read but it does make sense. Especially with one of the authors being good friends with Woods.

And the idea of Al Quds Brennan running unilateral ops without telling the CIA head makes it seem like the govt has appointees nominally in charge and the True Believers actually running what the various institutions do.

On the smaller issues there is little daylight between Bush and Barry theoretically, but their similar operations are in support of vastly different strategies, both of them deeply flawed.

Bush had a strategy of transforming Islam politically and avenging 9/11. The first could not and will never work to any useful degree. At least with Bush his killing and interrogation programs were in harmony with his flawed strategy.

Barry OTOH kills jihadists hither and yon, but only in what might be called the NGOs of terror. He simultaneously has encouraged and cheered on the thing that almost no one is stupid enough to call "the Arab Spring" anymore, which has effectively installed jihadist governments in several countries previously relatively harmless.

Until the West understands that Islam itself is dangerous and unreformable and inherently expansionist there will never be an effective strategy formed against it. When it is beaten down and repressed it loses its expansionist enthusiasm. When it is tolerated and placated it spreads malignantly.

the big difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama is biased toward secret and covert:

((Behind closed doors, President Obama had given his counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, carte blanche to run operations in North Africa and the Middle East, provided he didn’t do anything that ended up becoming an exposé in The New York Times and embarrassing the administration. In 2012, a secret war across North Africa was well underway.

There are parts of that story, that make sense, like Stevens being cut out, but wouldn't Woods and Doherty have filled him in on the details, indications there were only small fry being nabbed, more likely the taking out of two high profile Libyan AQ, like Abu Yahy (nee Quid) and Atiyah Rehman, was the
proximate cause.

O/T - For the musically inclined JOMers, north Alabama's own The Alabama Shakes are up for Best New Artist at tonight's Grammy Awards. Their lead singer, the eclectic Brittany Howard, will also perform in the tribute to Levon Helm.

EXCLUSIVE: David Petraeus was brought down after betrayal by vengeful CIA agents and his own bodyguards who made sure his affair was exposed, claims new book
Brandon Webb, a former Navy SEAL, and Jack Murphy, a former Green Beret, reveal the new claims in their book 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report'
Petraeus was humiliated after a 'palace coup' by high-level intelligence officers who did not like the way he was running the CIA, authors say
The book also claims that Petraeus and Ambassador Chris Stevens were caught off guard by Benghazi consulate attack because they weren't briefed about on-going U.S. military operations in Libya
Webb and Murphy say Benghazi attack was a retaliation for secret raids authorized by Obama security adviser John Brennan

--who changed the talking points, sending Rice all over the place during the election?

--on the night of the embassy attack, where was Obama and what did he that night? did he even call to inquire about what was going on?

I'd like to know how the hey he could have been talking to Bibi for an hour after he had been told about what was going on in Libya. Shouldn't Libya, instead of campaign matters, have been his all-consuming one and only priority that night?

I despise Lindsey Graham for a variety of reasons, but I despise him less than before after seeing Chubby's 1:55 PM link. I can't believe I clicked on Graham, must be the influence of the esteemed Chubby.

Brennan one does recall, was opposed to the Libyan intervention, at least initially, I understand the need for secrecy, but who did they go after, this still sounds like a game of telephone,

Then again, it does resemble that part of the Siege, where Bruce Willis having nabbed the Iraqi Sheikh, an odd displacement by Wright,is almost non chalant as the terrorist cell, rampages through New York, except warning the politicians, not to declare martial law

Jane:
Finally the truth is starting to come out. I wonder how Carney proposes to spin this?
This is big. Brennan is definitely not going to be confirmed now. Petraeus was played by Obama the cretin.He was betrayed by his own people.Wow!

Some twenty years ago, I began to notice that every time there was a prediction of a snow storm, if I could go to the supermarket and find an Entenmann's Danish with no nuts that it would be a bad storm.
I blame Global Warming on the fact that Entenmann's stopped making the Danish with no nuts.

Jane:
I am simply amazed that these people can be so cavalier about the deaths of 4 brave Americans. I am simply without words.Increasingly it seems that everything that could go wrong did and that no one assumed responsibility to defend and protect our people. These 4 heroes saved lives in spite of their own country failing to protect them.My hope is that,Obama,Hillary,Brennan and Petraeus are permanently scarred by this ineptitude and exercise of politically covering their rear-ends. None should be allowed to prosper. Petraeus had his punishment. Now it is time for the rest of them to face the music. Brennan should not be confirmed. Hillary should be finished ,politically and Obama should be impeached.

Back 3 1/2 months ago, Graham and the repubs in the Senate didn't have 2 important cabinet nominations to hang their hats on. He now has Hagel and Brennan's future as cabinet members and at CIA to get some answers or Obama can ditch them but if he doesn't nominate replacements (who will get the same treatment) then he (Obama) starts to look weak and unravel. No way the MSM can spike this story more than they have.

JIB:
Anything that diminishes Obama is fine by me. He was re-elected under false pretenses. The war on terror has not been won. We do not have AlQueda on the run and His lies about Benghazi are being exposed. Good. The guillotine is too good for him. Brennan will continue to squirm. I loved Cheney's remarks. Second string indeed. There are no good dem candidates for Obama to nominate.

Several parts are blatantly unconstitutional under Heller and McDonald, but that archaic document has never stopped them before.

I too thought that the proposed CA gun ban was a bit over the top. #1, at the top of their list, was a ban of all semiautomatic RIFLES with detachable magazines. In other words, they are proposing to ban most semiautomatic rifles developed over the last half century or longer. I think that that would run aground on both Heller and the much older Miller case. And, how do they argue any sort of compelling state interest, whatsoever, when these guns are safer (because of the detachable magazine), and most of the guns used by their gang bangers are hand guns, not rifles. Hard to walk down the street with an AR-15 hidden under your shirt, and not get noticed by the cops. Besides, a lot of the long guns used by these gang members in CA are fully automatic weapons smuggled into this country, along with their drugs.

Then, #2 is a ban on the mere possession of regular capacity magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets. Not as severe as some other bans, but this time it isn't just buying such magazines that is a crime, but also owning them. So, driving to Nevada or Arizona won't help. I am guessing that since semiautomatic rifles are banned in #1, that this is aimed more at pistols. This is one that might survive federal court scrutiny. Maybe.

I do wonder whether they are going to expand their border check points, that are currently agricultural in nature, to cover guns, ammo, and magazines. To easy to just drive to AZ or NV, where the only real federal restriction is purchasing handguns out-of-state, and were gun laws are much more tolerant.

Bruce,
I thought #8 particularly preposterous.
The state is going to prevent a spouse or child or parent who is prohibited from owning from living with his family member who might own a gun or compel the family member to give up their constitutional rights?
Perhaps there is a family exclusion which will still run into serious problems in this preeminently cohabiting state.

The reasoning for #5 was also ludicrous.
ALL sales in CA must currently be run through an FFL with a background check so there is no way registration can be used to increase background check efficiency. I suspect it would be found an unconstitutional restriction as well without any compelling state interest other than forcing gun owners submit to an invasion of privacy akin to forcing them to register what political magazines they subscribe to.

Don't forget, it was only afterwards that we learned that 4 Americans died, including an ambassador.

While ObamaHillaryPanetta were having their nonconversations about this nonproblem which they had no information about, and when Obama went to bed that night, the entire staff of the US consulate was at risk of capture, torture and/or death.

Oh, God, why doesn't anyone tell me about these things? I just found the band "Rock Sugar" -- they "mashup" '80s heavy metal and '80s pop songs. So you get (mostly) the lyrics to Joan Jett's "I Love Rock 'n' Roll" to the music of Def Leppard's "Pour Some Sugar on Me".

Worth mentioning that Bob Schieffer interviewing Lindsey Graham doesn't give a carp about getting to the bottom of this Benghazi mess and finding out facts. The entire thrust of all his questioning is "Will this affect President Obama's ability to have his appointments confirmed?" He cares nothing about anything other than that---how will this affect the President.

...that now the Republicans via Sequester are making the President have to cut funding for our Military and Security. This Sequester will increase the likelihood of these disasters happening in the future because of the Republicans, and we will be unable to refuel our Aircraft Carriers because of the Republicans, and our retired Vets will suffer cutbacks because of the Republicans, etc.

I am simply amazed that these people can be so cavalier about the deaths of 4 brave Americans.

How many U.S. Military deaths in Afghanistan since Obama became president? 3,000? Do you think any of these lib scum give a damn about those soldiers or their families except in terms of domestic politics?

The story still doesn't make sense, even when he was station in Riyadh, he was more of an analyst, little is said of his success there, because there was none, Petraeus and before him, McCrystal ran the local outreach with the tribes.

“It is a vast overstatement to suggest that President Obama is channeling President Bush,” said Geoffrey R. Stone, a University of Chicago law professor who hired a young Mr. Obama to lecture there. “On almost every measure, Obama has been more careful, more restrained and more respectful of individual liberties than President Bush was.”

Remember back in the heady days of Candidate Obama, when the President's policies were the worst sort of war crimes? And the fierce moral imperative for change? Yeah, me too. The lack of a substantive difference in most of these policies (and expansion of the most lethal drone attacks) is acceptable, because there may be a modest spin in the right direction? Or maybe because the won has a pained expression on his face when he [refuses to] talks about it?

Horse-puckey. He didn't learn anything. He knew he was spouting dishonest disloyal demagoguery from the get-go, and it was all playing to the leftist propaganda machine in hopes of a few more votes from the misguided muddle. He never had any intention of implementing such nonsense, and anyone who thought differently is a rube.

And finally, we get to the real crux:

“We trust the president,” former Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said on Current TV. “And if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms because we wouldn’t trust that he would strike in a very targeted way and try to minimize damage rather than contain collateral damage.”

Aside from the obvious (i.e., he's trustworthy because he lied about it), this demonstrates the logic of the left: it's okay if you're a Democrat. Well, I'll say one thing for 'em . . . at least they're consistent.

2) Our Mayor, who I hope runs against Begich, is proposing Legislation "that would weaken the power of city labor unions."

If approved, the proposal would rewrite city law in a way that takes away the right to strike, curbs pay increases and eliminates raises based solely on longevity or performance bonuses. Unions would not be allowed to seek binding arbitration to resolve contract disputes under the proposal. Those disputes would be decided by the Assembly.

The hatred in the comments for the Mayor and the Governor up here is astonishing. To judge by the letters to the editor section of our local paper, I would say that we have already hopelessly gone to the Left.

Listening to Pelosi on Chris Wallace just this instant. She's already damned the Repub's for Sequestration. But just listening to her go on about ObamaCare and Medicare and that our Health Care costs are coming down due to ObamaCare, is just too hard for me to take. She is disconnected from reality. I don't know how anyone can watch these shows without getting nauseous.

It's always traumatic for the families but to believe the Executive does not care and to get so little attention. Yet when a tragedy does happen people who are total strangers seem to want to go out of their way to show respect.

Perhaps it is also to show respect for that essence of America that is slipping away.

Well it was a typo, but in his case, it fits,
the ADN practiced 'a random act of journalism' in the piece. This was the piece of legislation promoted by Chip 'the Dude' Thoma, who later went on to harass Piper, because of her lemonade stand,

The vessel Statendam of Holland America -- the same company that pleaded guilty to a criminal charge for a 2002 spill in the Juneau harbor -- met water quality standards for copper and zinc in 11 of 12 samples taken in 2010, the most recent year for which sample data has been posted on the DEC website. The samples were taken over a four-month span during the May to September season.

daddy -- for the left, it's only "science" if it supports their pet causes.

Thus, all the studies in the world showing "more guns, less crime" will be ignored in favor of a single poorly-conducted, innumerate study claiming a gun in your home will likely sneak up on you and rape you.

I think it's always easier to comment on a situation form outside of it. This applies on a personal level, for example among friends, as well as on a national level.

Sometimes a bit of distance gives clarity. At other times, we are so unaware of the nuances of a situation that we won't make the same decisions those in the situation will. This happens to leaders when they change positions.

No, Texybook, actually Bush was very circumspect, one recalls the outrage when they took out one of the remaining members of the Lackawanna cell in 2002, voiced by Sy Hersh,
at the outset of the Iraq campaign, based on the information of the Rockstars, we struck a number of targets, one of which killed a member of the Dulaimi clan, but that was a rarity,

It's irony that Petraeus was allegedly disliked in the CIA for his focus on paramilitary operations, yet that is exactly what Brennan's Private Force is doing with no congressional oversight and no coordination. We already know Obama is a puppet for Soros and others; so on whose orders is Brennan acting? And for what purpose?

Does the so-called War on Terror give blanket authority to WH staff to initiate operations on foreign soil without Congress' approval or declaration of war?

Amazingly I only saw a comment or two and even then it was wondering about proofreading.
I demand to know if she thinks Gore is one of the country's biggest dicks, because if she doesn't, she's gotta be the only person who doesn't and is woefully misinformed to boot.

No wonder, then, that the numbers and percentages come to him so easily: 90 million tons of global warming pollution are sent into the atmosphere every day, trapping more heat than 40,000 Hiroshima bombs. Every day.

Congressional Democrats and Republicans appeared far apart Sunday on a deal to avert $85 billion in federal spending reductions next month, with a top House Republican saying the cuts appear “inevitable.”

The automatic cuts, known as sequester, kick in March 1 because the parties have failed to agree on a less-drastic plan to cut the federal budget and deficit.

If they're not careful, these nuts might cut almost 8% of the deficit! Why, that'd leave us with only $10T more debt instead of $11T over the next ten years if they don't somehow find a way to borrow more!

If there were an Executive Order by Obama authorizing Brennan's unconstitutional Private Force, it would be secret, not widely distributed, with the ability to be erased from any records if Obama felt threatened by impeachment. If Brennan shows his copy, Obama can say it's a forgery. Brennan next under the bus?